Nestle India Limited Vs. The Union of India

Issue notice. Learned counsel for the petitioners accepts notice. Having heard learned counsels at some length, at this stage, we are inclined to continue with the interim order staying the recovery of the balance amount from the petitioner, since the petitioner has already deposited Rs.16,58,32,723/- out of the Rs.89,73,16,384/-. However, we make it clear that this interim order shall not come in the way of the National Anti Profiteering Authority in cases where it has suo moto taken action. We also observe that prima facie, it appears to us that the limitation period of six months provided in Rule 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017, within which the authority should make its order from the date of receipt of the report of the Directorate General of Anti Profiteering, appears to be directory in as much as no consequence of non-adherence to the said period of six months is prescribed either in the CGST Act or the rules framed thereunder. This indicates that the legislative intent behind Rule 133 is not to impose a mandatory deadline but rather a guideline for administrative efficiency. It underscores the flexibility within the regulatory framework, allowing for the practicalities of case handling without the pressure of strict temporal constraints. This interpretation is crucial because it impacts how procedural timelines are managed in anti-profiteering cases under the GST regime, reflecting a balance between regulatory diligence and procedural fairness. The current interim order provides the petitioner with a temporary reprieve from immediate recovery actions while maintaining the integrity of the ongoing proceedings by the National Anti Profiteering Authority. The fact that a significant portion of the demanded amount has already been deposited by the petitioner demonstrates their willingness to comply with regulatory requirements, albeit while contesting the total demand. This gesture of partial compliance serves as a mitigating factor in favor of granting interim relief. Furthermore, by explicitly stating that this interim order will not impede the National Anti Profiteering Authority’s suo moto actions, the court acknowledges the authority’s autonomy and ongoing efforts to address profiteering issues proactively. This balance ensures that while the petitioner’s interests are safeguarded, the regulatory body’s mandate is not undermined. The aspect of the six-month timeline being directory rather than mandatory is particularly noteworthy. It implies that the absence of a penal clause for exceeding the six-month period allows for a degree of leniency, which can be crucial in complex cases where extensive investigation and deliberation are necessary. This flexible approach aligns with principles of natural justice, ensuring that parties are not unduly penalized due to procedural technicalities. Reply to the application should be filed within four weeks from today, with any rejoinder to be filed before the next hearing date. This structured timeline for submissions ensures that all parties have adequate time to prepare their cases, promoting thorough and fair adjudication. Listing the matter for further consideration on 20.05.2020 allows the court to re-evaluate the situation based on the detailed submissions from both sides. This interim order thus serves multiple purposes: it provides immediate relief to the petitioner from recovery actions, upholds the procedural integrity of the anti-profiteering framework, and ensures a fair and comprehensive judicial review of the underlying statutory provisions and their practical application. By doing so, it sets a precedent for handling similar cases, emphasizing the importance of balancing regulatory enforcement with procedural fairness and administrative flexibility.

Download PDF:

For reference visit:

Read another case law:

GST Case Law: